September 14, 2011

As a result of the findings, Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, issued a statement calling for an oversight hearing to review the “possibly illegal” process. Nass chairs the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities.

“The study raises serious allegations against the UW System that they would use race and ethnicity as a core admissions test,” said Mike Mikalsen, a spokesperson for Nass. “It seems to show numerous students are being bypassed, with hundreds of more qualified students not being admitted.”

Mikalsen said the hearing, which would be scheduled in the upcoming weeks, could lead to the drafting of new legislation concerning the issues at hand or a request being made to the attorney general for formal review.

He added litigation against UW lies “almost certainly” on the horizon.

I would have liked more discussion of legal doctrine and the precise issues from the case law, but both men chose to concentrate on policy, with the assumption that racial equality and harmony are the desired ultimate goals. What's the best way to get there? It's an old, old question, and the 2 men mainly assembled the usual pro and con arguments, so I doubt if any minds were changed.

What I need to say this morning is that there are 2 separate matters: whether affirmative action is permissible and whether it is a good idea. If affirmative action violates the Constitution, it doesn't matter whether it's a good idea or not. It's not permissible. It isn't an option in the set of options that the University has when it designs its admissions policy. (Yes, you could try to get the Constitution amended or the University could decide to go ahead and violate the Constitution and try to cover up what it's really doing.)

But is it a good idea? What struck me last night is that both Clegg and Church spoke almost entirely about whether it's a good idea. Each man had his set of reasons for his policy position, and, frankly, I found it a bit dull, because they weren't honestly agonizing over the difficult costs and benefits and ethical trade-offs. They already had their positions and they advocated them. There was no view into a real human mind thinking seriously about a difficult problem, no real-time performance of decisionmaking.

Now, why did both men choose to discuss the matter at the policy level, each endeavoring to sell his policy? Why did neither man have much to say about whether it's constitutional? One answer is that it's a complicated question, and the answer is that it's constitutional if you do it the right way and it takes a long time to explain what the right way is, and it takes a really long time to go into the matter of whether the University is presently doing it the right way. You could also say that the legal question is difficult enough that most people — including judges! — are going to decide it based on what they want the answer to be. So it's best to talk about policy anyway.

But shouldn't Clegg want to emphasize law? Clegg wants to deny the University the full range of options and the way to do that is to put the affirmative action option off limits by designating it as a constitutional rights violation.

Scroll back to the top of this post for your answer. The University is currently the decisionmaker about which policy to adopt among the range of permissible policies, but the state legislature could trump the University. Clegg may seem to be threatening a lawsuit and, if he takes that route, he will need to speak in the language of constitutional rights.

But there is a different route, the legislative route, and it doesn't depend on aligning the facts of this case with the fussy particularities of the Supreme Court's case law. It's a direct appeal to the people of Wisconsin and their representatives in the Capitol. And nobody needs to understand the law for that groundswell of antagonism to affirmative action to take the policymaking power away from the University.

Of course they should look at it. I would think a lot of deserving Wisconsin students (and their families) are upset they are not geting consideration so out of state "diverse" students can come to the UofW.

I'm an engineer. Engineers are problem-solvers. We take a set of initial conditions and try to figure out what we need to do to get to a desired outcome. Success or failure is judged on whether that outcome is achieved. Not coincidentally, almost all engineers are conservative.

Liberals are not interested in outcomes. "Solutions" like welfare, food stamps and public housing demonstrably remove incentives and destroy self worth in the very people these programs are meant to help. The outcome is irrelevant to liberals-- it is the intent that matters.

Affirmative action is a perfect example. I believe the statistic was 22% of law school students are minorities, but only 6% of law school hires? Why is this? Could it be that students admitted under affirmative action will be forever suspect in their ability? Liberal legislation is always trying to shove the square peg of human nature into the round hole of good intentions.

If affirmative action violates the Constitution, it doesn't matter whether it's a good idea or not. It's not permissible.

Isn't the fact that it is unconstitutional fairly strong (but not conclusive, see prohibition) evidence that it is not a good idea?

Look at the First Amendment. There are a host of cases where people "honestly agoniz[e] over the difficult costs and benefits and ethical trade-offs" of free speech, and there are limited cases where speech can be restricted. But staunch opposition to free expression does not mean that you don't appreciate the other side's views. It means that you believe that that making an exception for those concerns is more dangerous and damaging in the long run.

This boils down to admitting 300 black students and 531 hispanic students to an entering class of 9,875.

Is it in the University's best interest to simply have the highest overall SAT and GPA average among admitted students? What other factors play into admissions preference? Do artists and music majors need a 1,400 SAT? Scholarship athletes? Who else gets admissions preference?

For the record, Church spent the first 8 minutes of his initial 10 minutes walking everyone through the relevant Supreme Court case law. He went into as much detail as time allowed.

Suggesting that a man like Larry Church is "not thinking seriously" about this issue is beyond the pale.

For one thing, as has been mentioned by all sides, Clegg sandbagged Church and the Federalist Society. This "debate" was supposed to be an informal affair with pizza and maybe 15 people in attendance. I'm sure Church was more than prepared to discuss the legal points for much more than 8 minutes before he got thrust into this overly politicized event.

For another, Church's policy points, especially in his 10-minute rebuttal, were much more nuanced than Clegg's, who stuck to the talking points script that we've all heard a million times in the last 30 years.

It's a direct appeal to the people of Wisconsin and their representatives in the Capitol.

Contemporary progressives/liberals hate direct appeals to the people. Witness Wisconsin for the last few months: they have repeatedly tried to repeal the results of the last general election! The people must conform to what progressives decide is best, and that cannot be done using the democratic process. It can only be finally assured in the judicial system, and then only when properly-appointed liberal polticians are seated upon the benches.

That is actually a good point, but it begs the question, what do these admissions have to offer? Artists and musicians and athletes presumably excel in their fields. What contribution does the color of a student's skin make to society?

You don't have to be a statistician to see that the analysis in the CEO "study" is significantly flawed. So yes, let have legislative hearings and actions based on flawed conclusions.

Really?

"The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.

For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance."

"If affirmative action violates the Constitution, it doesn't matter whether it's a good idea or not." Bingo. And thus the essence of the liberal/conservative ideological clash is defined. The former take the position that if it a "good idea" it should become law or some kind of inescapable requirement. If not through the legislative process, then through court mandate, a regulatory directive, by executive order or some other bureaucratic scheme. Constitutional restrictions be damned!

The latter believe that whether an idea is good or bad, if it is Unconstitutional, it cannot be imposed by government at any level.

As a teacher, I'd rather have people who want to learn. That's not necessarily someone with a high test score.

I would also want people who want to learn if I were a teacher.

However, I would have some personal reservations about it knowing that other potential students who also wanted to learn and who were as qualified or more qualified were turned away because they were not the "right" color or ethnicity.

Wouldn't you be at least somewhat concerned about the gross unfairness of the situation and wonder what the long term results on the adverse selection process are on not only your students and the disadvantaged turned away students: but also on the professions for which you are preparing them to occupy?

they weren't honestly agonizing over the difficult costs and benefits and ethical trade-offs.

I don't think there are any tough ethical questions here at all.

The logic of affirmative action is that, left to their own decisions, some employers would discriminate against members of certain groups. That is, they would favor less-qualified whites over other, more-qualified candidates. The obvious test for discriminatory hiring practices is that the bottom of the distribution of white (male?) employees is below the bottom of the distribution of other employees.

There is no comparable logic that calls for an institution to impose affirmative action rules on itself. If UW's chief exec thinks that the admissions office is rejecting black applicants with the same qualifications as admitted whites, then she should fire the dean of admissions.

The only rational, long-run role for affirmative action is to make sure that the applicant pool is not skewed. So, for example, if the UW thought that inner-city students weren't as aware of the U's financial aid packages as suburban kids were, and so the inner-city kids were less likely to apply to UW, then the school would be fully justified in targeting inner-city schools with an information blitz.

None of this, obviously, provides any justification whatsoever for putting two thumbs and a foot on one side of the scale in admissions decisions.

If we are going to make "diversity" a goal, then perhaps the UofW could focus on creating some charter schools in poor sections of Milwalkie, and fostering disadvantaged kids to really succeed at the UofW from the ground up. Rather than focusing on skin color, focus on what your actual goal is.

So, you end discrimination based on race by ending affirmative action based on race. Then what? A young person of whatever race wants to get into law school. How do they do it?

They can't depend on some set aside or special favor to them based on their race, so what do they have to do?

Exactly.

So, why is that a bad thing, especially for a minority that has a history of low performance? Isn't that the best thing, and wouldn't we be a lot better off today if it had been for the last say 20 years? It is essentially the reason why some races out-perform the "protected" ones. That protection is poison.

Is it in the University's best interest to simply have the highest overall SAT and GPA average among admitted students?

I'd say no. As a teacher, I'd rather have people who want to learn. That's not necessarily someone with a high test score.

I think high school GPA (class rank) is the best predictor of desire to learn and do well in college, with SAT/ACT and historical collegiate GPA necessary to help compare students from different high schools.

And in general, does anyone think minorities have a equal or greater desire to learn over Whites and Asians?

DBQ, save it for when you take the medical-school boards. Anyway 209 ended most of AA in CA for education. To get into UC grad school, you need only have great test scores, be from a wealthy asian, jewish, or the occasional WASP family, and come from around LA or the Bay. Say grazi to CA konservatives for that.

I see the university announcing that the policy of affirmative action is ended. This is then followed by a required entrance essay asking each potential student to write about his/her cultural background with emphasis on how this will benefit the university community. So after all the shouting, the old policy continues but wearing new clothes.

Is it in the University's best interest to simply have the highest overall SAT and GPA average among admitted students?

I'd say no. As a teacher, I'd rather have people who want to learn. That's not necessarily someone with a high test score.

I think both of you are looking at this from a parochial perspective. It really doesn't matter what's in the University's best interests qua the University, nor the teachers' best interests qua the teachers. It's about what's in the best interests of the taxpayers.

I'm actually pretty forgiving of LBJ and Nixon for some of the social engineering that came out of that period. They were brilliant men, there were big problems, and everybody at the top wanted some big, experimental solutions. Some of these projects worked, some did not.

Affirmative action is something that desperately needs to get sunsetted out of existence. Whatever help it might once have done, it hurts far too much now. Demanding that universities and employers pick up the slack from failed homes and public schools is disastrous. Bad parents and bad students are going to have to start carrying their own weight. The incentives of AA are perverse, and it's high time to stop penalizing white bourgeois young people for the perceived race-sins of their forebears, and demand that present minority young people prove their mettle.

1)Use some performance/merit based scoring.2) At each percentile admit students based on population percentile of that race unless enough of a given race do not score that high, then too bad - the rest at that percentile get in regardless of race.

This rewards merit without pushing anyone past someone else who out performed them.

It will result in poor performing races getting less spots, but only until they up their game. But, it also give advantage to those minorities who tie. Basically I'm saying all ties go to the minority. That's as far as I'll go with A.A.

"For the record, Church spent the first 8 minutes of his initial 10 minutes walking everyone through the relevant Supreme Court case law. He went into as much detail as time allowed. "

I have the video, but I haven't watched it. I was waiting for Church to explain the doctrine as stated in Grutter, but I don't think I heard it. Did he explain the type of diversity that counts as a compelling interest in strict scrutiny? Did he distinguish it from racial balancing, which is specifically not permitted. I don't think he did. He spoke about the cases but in terms of policy. There are specific things about doctrine that are crucial in the legal analysis that were never brought to the audience's attention.

This whole thing about Affirmative Action at the college level reminds me of a piece of graffiti I spotted on a bathroom wall in SF many years ago.

"When you are up to your ass in alligators it it too late to remember the original solution was to drain the swamp." or something like that.

AA is too late. If you truly want to help minorities succeed we must 'drain the swamp' and make sure that the schools are actually teaching students. Instead we turn out semi literate high school graduates who need remedial help at the college level for the most basic skills that they should have learned by 8th grade.

Get rid of Teachers Unions, support charter schools, encourage a culture of learning and produce high school graduates that are capable.

And depriving possibly better-qualified students of admission, even if they are residents of Wisconsin.

That's a supposition. We're talking about a few hundred students. My supposition is that UW-Madison could have expanded their admissions pool to let those possibly better-qualified students in if they wanted them. For example, in 2007 there were 500 or so more admits than 2008.

Is the complaint that Blacks and Hispanics who do apply to the University of Wisconsin from IN STATE, are somehow losing out to foreign students?

Is the problem "monetary?" Where the University chooses its students based on who is paying "more?"

Again, since I got into Pasadena Junior College by doing nothing more than applying. All I had to do to stay in was collect the units of classes I needed to graduate. AND, I needed to pass the tests.

Diversity happens by itself. The pool of applicants are diverse. As are their abilities.

First day when classes start are a huge mess of traffic! There just wasn't enough parking to absorb all the cars. And, people filled up all the side streets. (Plus, the college offers "park & ride." Where you park miles away; and they shuttle bus you to campus.)

Every single class starts "fully loaded." With students in the doorway begging for a seat. But there usually aren't any.

It doesn't take the professors long to empty this out to a size of class they want to handle. Because they make their first test or two easy to fail. And, as soon as some students see those failing grades they "drop the class." Some, even, drop the whole idea of going to this college.

The number you get to register gets better and better. But at no time does your number give anything away about yourself. It's just a number.

This method brought order within one or two weeks of the new school session.

"Suggesting that a man like Larry Church is "not thinking seriously" about this issue is beyond the pale."

Be clear about what I actually said: "There was no view into a real human mind thinking seriously about a difficult problem, no real-time performance of decisionmaking."

I didn't say that he doesn't think seriously. I said he didn't perform the thought process of reaching a position. He didn't struggle with a difficult problem in front of the audience. He advocated, stressing one side of a policy argument, not a legal argument. To me, if you're going to go with policy, I want to see you struggle with the pros and cons. If one man lists the pros, and the other man lists the cons.... I find it dull. I want to see real human minds working in front of me.

DBQ's usual guessing game. With exit tests in place, CA student scores have improved slightly. And the anti-AA people and teatards are not helping out whitey, most of whom can't afford private schools. Theyre helping out wealthy Bay and LA kids (the majority of UC students anyway). Pauttard libertarianism just doesn't begin to describe the situation. Yo maybe read some Pynchon instead of Ayn Rand,or the teatard newsletter.

It's not just law. It's also politics. Whenever people have sides to advocate, the element of real conversation and engagement is lost. It's very sad! It's not that people aren't smart and good and engaged. It's just that they don't speak in the same way when they are advocating.

One of my favorite teachers, Professor Orosco, started his class by going in the front of the room. Leaning against the board. And, telling the people in this very crowded room. That he would guarantee them a "B" ...

He said not all students have the same skills. So, he divides his grading method into 3 parts. If you are good at one of them, you'll get a "B."

Of course, the first is passing tests. And, the second is handing in all the essays you've been assigned. And, the third grade he considers (in the "B" category), is class participation. And, attendance.

Still, there were dropouts.

Where you have admissions where you can just walk in and apply, will bring people from across a broad spectrum. A weak student doesn't make it.

I'm surprised at U of W ... it's "admissions" that's being tested ... Not the competency of how the students do once they are in various classrooms.

Of course, we learned from the fiasco of last winter, where the teacher's union wanted to take a stand against Governor Walker, that they lost. And, they lost respect country wide!

Obviously, they still have soldiers i the field. And, they're still "looking for a fight."

But the clue should be they picked a pair of women's boxing gloves to advertise this one.

And, they've also picked on something that grew rich on legal challenges ... While as the country at large has grown disgusted with these advancements.

Since this won't go away without a fight, why not have the fight now?

How come it's a republican senator who has picked up these gloves?

And exactly what group of students have been drawn into this complaint?

Most people/voters do not think about the philosophical justifications for affirmative action (AA-- not our host). Those are complex: is the goal to end racism? does AA help us reach that goal?

They think the porpoise of AA is reparations. Really, most do.

This is a political issue more than a philosophical one.

For the record, I think AA is justifiable philosophically but, like socialism, AA has proven ineffective. Furthermore, it is an injury and an offense to equal treatment principles. It should be abolished.

Honestly I don't get too worked up over this. I see it more as a dignity problem for the protected classes that a discrimination issue for lighter skinned peoples and Asians.

If I were to throw a fit about something, it would be tax dollars subsidizing bullshit majors like the various "studies". When was the last time a major employer left Wisconsin because they couldn't find qualified gay-lesbian-transgendered studies majors to work for them?

I'd rather have people who want to learn. That's not necessarily someone with a high test score.

The high test score is pretty good evidence that the testee has achieved some prior learning. Are you saying that her skin color and lower test score are even stronger evidence of her 'desire to learn'?

I don't pretend to understand the state of the law on this issue, but obviously the universities feel that they have lots of wiggle room, if they can come up with results like Wisconsin's and say with a straight face that they are not discriminating. At least that's what you would hope they are thinking. The other alternative is that they feel the law need not be followed, and are willing to lie to fit themselves into perceived loopholes.

It's a terrible mess, created by over a half century of utter failure in educating young African Americans to a high standard since Brown v. Board. This failure is at least as scandalous as segregated schools were. Yet we continue to try variations of the same failed policies. The most vigorous opponents of new and innovative solutions are the self anointed friends of the African Americans, the so-called progressives.

We are never going so solve this by debating affirmative action at the college level. We need intensive reform at the local level in primary and secondary education, and in the attitudes of the black communities as a whole.

Souter is KELO. And, Souter is off the court. It would be insane to go to his writings for anything BUT: "We The People Are Glad he Is Gone."

Of course, you have "lemon tests." And, Sandra Day O'Connor's "forks" and "plastic reindeer."

It seems to me the UNIONS are at play, here. Roger Clegg or Professor Church ... are two old men who live in a clueless world. This was not something to bring to campus ... as if those two old geezers were onto anything at all.

And, yes. It's possible that the students, today, are more conservative, as a lot, than their professors!

This is usually TRUE! Things parents and old professors believe in dearly ... are baggage pieces they held onto from their own youths.

Today's students, may be more conservative in their views. No. They're not voting for republicans. They may even echew politics all together. It doesn't contain solutions.

And, other than here, this may not be a topic of discussion anywhere else?

When politicians take over academics, U or W might as well become a paper mill. You'll be able to sell credentials on line; without any need to attend?

Althouse: If one man lists the pros, and the other man lists the cons.... I find it dull. I want to see real human minds working in front of me.

That assumes that the minds can see more than the arguments for their own side. Presumably Larry Church can but many proponents of either side can not. Including people in positions of significant power and influence.

Pogo's patented Rush Limblow-like brainfart, which has nothing to do with the AA issue, which concerns matriculation: credits are given to those from marginalized socio-economic classes.

But come to think of it, yeah US science education is hegemonic , and controlled by corporate capitalists--why for 20 grand a semester at a private U like Steinford or USC, Jr can study the holy calculus with other Google execs-to- be .

Do you get the feeling a lot of people just won't say what the real problem is, and that all this discussion is just part of the avoidance, a looking away, a changing of the subject. Separating ourselves by race does kinda let us off the hook. We are either victims or it's not our problem, so it's nobody's job to really fix it.

I was waiting for Church to explain the doctrine as stated in Grutter, but I don't think I heard it. Did he explain the type of diversity that counts as a compelling interest in strict scrutiny? Did he distinguish it from racial balancing, which is specifically not permitted. I don't think he did. He spoke about the cases but in terms of policy. There are specific things about doctrine that are crucial in the legal analysis that were never brought to the audience's attention.

In fact, he did discuss racial balancing when he explained that the Court struck down quotas; he further explained, repeatedly, that the Court allows "moderate affirmative action." He explained O'Connor's reasoning in Grutter. Watch the video!

yeah US science education is hegemonic , and controlled by corporate capitalists

Sorry, there is no royal road to learning. Those who want to learn the scientific method, and the various disciplines that operate by it, need pass no screening test of wealth or political orientation to do so. All they need do is master the elementary increments of it throughout their K-12 free public education, and then build on that mastery in future, using its built-in skepticism to rebuff mindless assertions such as the one quoted above.

Not exactly bagboy --more like in the 60sand70s those nasty leftists finally realized that collegetown was controlled by wealthy WASP,and jew males, maybe a few italians. So ...they went to work to try to bring in more blacks and hispanics,and females--it wasn't just "getwhitey" but to allow a more accurate representation of the population. Whether one agrees with the motivations, it's fairly understandable. College shouldn't just be for...Biff and Bunny

Walker-Hitler should maintain harmony in Wis, give in to those very lively "educators". Judge Proser should quit his personal space to maintain harmony in the court. The House Republicans should raise taxes to keep the harmonists happy and reward another half bil to the harmonists' "green" energy sugar daddies.

Ann, the key case for UW is not Grutter, it is Gratz. What the statistical study shows is that the average admitted black or Hispanic students has qualifications that would virtually ensure the rejection of a similarly situated white or Asian student. That's an even stronger outcome than the 20-point across the board point bump that Gratz overturned.

It has been an error for years for people to look only at Grutter--Gratz is equally important since it shows a bright line example of illegal preferences.

Clarence Thomas dislikes Yale. He said Yale's Affirmative Action program hurt him! He worked as hard as everybody else at school. But when he graduated he was looked down upon by lawyers ... BECAUSE they thought "he got his Yale Law School degree, for free.

He's stuck a 15-cent cigar label on that certificate! And, when he was at a law school down in Florida, giving a speech. he told the Black students they were lucky! Because no one questions them on having earned their certification. Or having received it through "Affirmative Action."

Now, Souter did harm in New London, Connecticut! Pfizer wanted that land! But when KELO came down as something the developer could do; Phizer ran away. They didn't want their name attached to a place that is now the city's dump. (The homeowners, alas, lost their homes.)

I don't think you can spot somebody's competence on knowing they are men and not women.

Tall or short, also aren't indicators.

And, if we're lucky? This subject will die on the vine.

But if it should get debated, again, please don't go to the old geezers to make arguments. They should retire.

Affirmative action is permissible and good when performance standards are maintained at the same high levels which, presumably, obtained prior to the implementation of affirmative action.

AA is hated because when it was implemented - by recommend of the Nixon administration - performance standards were lowered. That made the implementation both impermissible and bad (destructive).

The US military maintains generally high respect because, overall, as it implemented AA, it maintained performance standards at pre-AA levels. Wobbling here and there, of course, but overall, performance standards have been maintained.

It is also worth recalling that the US Army was the first large US institution to desegregate, at the Army's own initiative.

AA itself is not an concern. Performance standards are a concern. Every human activity - even anthropological study, lord help us - has a mission, which means it has performance standards to accomplish its mission. Maintaining those standards through all possible mission-fulfillment scenarios is the way to happy, healthy everything. AA is just a mission-fulfillment scenario, in itself unremarkable and, with luck, of fleeting need.

I didn't say that he doesn't think seriously. I said he didn't perform the thought process of reaching a position. He didn't struggle with a difficult problem in front of the audience. He advocated, stressing one side of a policy argument, not a legal argument. To me, if you're going to go with policy, I want to see you struggle with the pros and cons. If one man lists the pros, and the other man lists the cons.... I find it dull. I want to see real human minds working in front of me.

His policy points were much more nuanced than Clegg's cliched talking points. I can infer from that alone that he's struggled and thought seriously about the problem.

Sure, the structure of the debate limited the discourse, but that's not his fault. Like everyone on both sides agrees, this was a publicity stunt by Clegg, and both Church and the Federalist Society were sandbagged.

I understand that your point is more about the debate itself than about the participants. It was a politicized event, which, apparently, now that the Wis. legislature has picked up on it, has served its purpose.

It's just a little disingenuous to be upset to not see "real human minds working" when the format allowed for 10 minutes. That also assumes that Larry Church hasn't already thought it through.

they weren't honestly agonizing over the difficult costs and benefits and ethical trade-offs

That's always the way with Republicans. Nothing but "individual rights" and "the Constitution" and so on. Never a word about the value of cheap cotton shirts in the 1850s, and never a word about the value of diversity now.

Furthermore, Church's first words were an explanation that he was tailoring his remarks to a general audience because he knew most of them were not legally trained. Again, until yesterday morning, this event was supposed to be 15 people in the law school with pizza.

The Tea-tards are wrong again.The main indicator of academic success is..the parents' economics level--kids from rich families do better than kids from poor families. Ergo, that discrepancy should, arguably, be accounted for, to some degree via entitlement programs. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs",yall.

No. I think home environment is the better predictor of desire to learn.

So you would give preference to interviews with student and parents over more quantifiable measures such as SAT and race. Assuming a reasonably impartial admissions board, that seems somewhat reasonable, though I would think SAT scores should still be considered, since children of the same parents can vary greatly in ability.

However, given the CEO numbers, do you think it is likely that race played a significant part in UW and do you think this is a better measure than either SAT or home environment?

I have long noticed with amusement that there is little pressure on airlines to use affirmative action and racial quotas in pilot selection. It's hard to think of an occupation that is whiter. Could the answer be that members of Congress are frequent flyers?

"Each man had his set of reasons for his policy position, and, frankly, I found it a bit dull because they weren't honestly agonizing over the difficult costs and benefits and ethical trade-offs."

"Agonizing" is seriously overrated in this context, particularly since those doing the "agonizing" almost never have to suffer the costs involved in the "ethical trade-offs." If that's what "agony" is about, it's a strangely light burden.

As for dullness, that's a pretty good description of S Ct 'doctrine' about AA, starting with Bakke and continuing to Grutter. It's been in a rut since the main battle of the civil rights wars -- rejecting Plessy and ending de jure segregation -- was won. AA, by definition, isn't a remedy imposed for intentional discrimination. Instead, it's all about societal and racial imbalances, having its focus on desired results rather than the reasons why those results didn't come about on their own. Despite what Holder thinks, the country has been having that conversation since the mid-60s, and it's gotten very dull indeed.

It's true that the intricacies of the Grutter 'test' have their intellectual attraction, drawing as that test does subtle distinctions between shadings of permitted and forbidden intentions, motives, objectives and the like. That may make for fun times in the classroom, but it's done nothing in moving the larger societal conversation about race forward. Only a dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrat-ophile, a real lover of hair-splitting obfuscation for its own sake, is likely to revel in Grutter's invitation to recast the narrative without changing the story.

"It's not just law. It's also politics. Whenever people have sides to advocate, the element of real conversation and engagement is lost. It's very sad! It's not that people aren't smart and good and engaged. It's just that they don't speak in the same way when they are advocating."

Very sadly very true. Well put, however. I used to describe it as attenuating inquiry so as to preclude not reaching a result devoutly unwished. This way of putting it, however, as sadness over not hearing the work of a living mind, is superior. Sadness, indeed.

Steinford,USC,and the Ivy League is the royal road, joto. And once the hs student applies to colleges he learns what the royal road looks like:even with good science grades he's not likely headed to SU, or the Ivy league. Or even UCs.Thats for the well-to-do, and the children of alums (ie--Dershowitz Jr etc) . Ergo, the "hegemony" of US education/academia, including science ed. Or just injustice, in blunter terms

"He didn't do performance art? You're suggesting he hadn't thought of this before. If he had, it would have been performance art."

No, I'm saying I'm not especially interested in hearing someone give the reasons that support a decision already made. I want to see someone reveal what the thought process of reaching the decision really is. He can reenact that process. I would find that interesting. He doesn't have to be struggling with it for the first time. This is my preference for what I like to hear if I'm going to a lecture. It's why I have trouble listening to lawyers and politicians. It's what they edit out that I find so interesting, including their own emotional reactions to various ideas, fears that they might be a bad person if they even entertain such a thought, and so forth. Of course, I understand why Clegg and Church did what they did. I'm explaining my own reaction to events like this.

And I get in trouble all the time by doing what I wish other people would do. You have no idea how angry I have made people, especially law professors, on many occasions. It works for me in blogging though!

Is it goiong to remain unnoticed by others? These are two very old white geezers!

One reason the white geezers are gonna fail to make an argument stick, is that there are no affirmative action students on stage!

You mean the University of Wisconsin at Madison never had one Black person graduate? And, not just women Blacks. Lets go to the top. WHERE'S THEIR MALE BLACK?

(Of course, Yale wouldn't want to invite Clarence Thomas! He is so pissed off at Yale, he has said it HURT him to get their credential. Because everyone he met thought he was too stupid to make it as a lawyer. So, he was given a credential. BUT IT WAS MEANINGLESS!

No Black males who have graduated from the law school in Madison, stay i contact with this school? WHY NOT?

Where, also, are your Hispanic graduates? What's the top job any single one of them actually got?

Two white geezers. You could put Karl Marx's corpse on display next to them. It would be like Barnum. You'd increase the revenue you'd collect ... to see these "specimens" on display.

I don't know what's going to change, here either. But white old geezers as specimen/spokesmen doesn't come across ... as something either one of them ever solved.

Do they just walk on top of the Black and Hispanic bodies?

Oh. And, how come just going in to this room didn't get you a free red balloon.

BOTH THOSE OLD WHITE GEEZERS SHOULD RETIRE TO AN OLD AGE HOME. (At least there the other people can shut off their hearing aids.)

Wisconsin, just like almost every other large public school, uses racial and ethnic quotas in admissions. We all know that, despite the contortions required to deny it. But so what? At the undergraduate level, is it really a big deal that a couple hundred kids(out of ten thousand) got in ahead of 'more qualified' students? I don't think so.

It's at the graduate school level that the damage is done, often to the student admitted on the basis of race. The reverse-waterfall effect pushes students up to a level where they're less likely to succeed, doing no good to the students or to society.

Legacy and athletic admissions are, in my view, more damaging than racial or ethnic quotas.

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says that you can't take the power to decide whether to discriminate away from a university and give it to the legislature or the people, because that would change the rules to the disadvantage of a minority group. I mean, it's right there in black and white.

If you've got a high school aged student. (Or you had one!) You know kids apply to more than one school!

I've already told you my Tommy Thompson story. Where a very bright kid from LA, went to Wisconsin. Because he was white. And, even though he could match the scores for Harvard and Berkeley admissions. He didn't make either one!

His mom said her son flipped into a terrible depression. He wasn't happy that he had to go off to college in Madison! (Until Halloween. When the MENSH, Tommy Thompson, went down to the campus. And, he saw these distressed kids, longing for home.) So, instead? He invited them to his mansion!

I heard this story 6 months after it had happened. The mom was accompanying her younger son to my son's high school. For a Certamen competition. And, we moms had collected in the teacher's lounge. And, chatted.)

So, to counter the 'red mittens' boxing gloves ... Which needs a black thong draped over them ...

I'd suggest that at the U of W, in Madison, they begin searching for younger professors. Two old geezers aren't speaking for anyone, other than the generation that has the most dead people. And, old ideas. That this generation laughs at.

Oh, it even gets iteresting, when you can claim that you belong to a sheltered group. While no one is telling you that American Indians are scoring points at any American university.

Next time one of these cockamamie meetings are called and held ... I hope you get someone coming in whose wearing a headdress full of feathers. And, the drumming is a tom-tom drum.

Ms Freeman Hunt--your graceful writing is a pleasant alternative from that of the usual A-chimps.

Politically-speaking, however, you're somewhat naive and mostly misguided. Is granting admission to the sons and daughters of alums from elite Ivy League schools about meritocracy? No. The anti-AA/TP types mainly help rich WASPs and jews--not the rural whites.

The main indicator of academic success is..the parents' economics level--kids from rich families do better than kids from poor families.

And why is this? Because those rich (relatively speaking) parents got that way by excelling in school, and getting well-paying jobs. They understand the value of education, and raise their kids in such a manner that they too excel in school.

It ain't race, it's culture, and until the culture in the 'hood changes, it's going to be left behind.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Well at least you're an honest Marxist, unlike the current occupant of the White House.

I have one question. Was this a "required class" for those kids who were in "Socialism 101 ?"

Have I got news for kids going to college, today! Take computer programming courses! No matter how long it takes you to master "HTML" ... Or C++ ... Or being able to program your own games ... That's the only ticket you're gonna have to get employed.

The other thing? Figure out how to make fries! And, not burn yourselves in the bargain.

Knowing "socialism 101" ... even if the only reason in this photo we saw ... is that the students had to be there ...

Get rid of these two old white geezer mascots! They are pickled. And, way beyond their prime!

Sad, if that's the way you collect a student audience, is to give them 'credit' for putting their butts in these chairs!

Hope the next time these two old geezers show up ... it's for their retirement parties! Food will definitely be distributed.

What a collective waste of time!

Plus, did NO ONE Black or Hispanic ever graduate from U W - Madison?

HELLO.

At Harvey Mudd the old students come back ... just after they are out in the business world a few years ... And, when they come to talk ... (Which I remember from my son's graduation.) They bring down the house with their stories!

These two old geezers, meanwhile, are considered "in touch?" With what? Maybe they should have argued, instead, about Viagra. And, how the current drug scene is affecting "youthfulness for the very old."

J: The main indicator of academic success is..the parents' economics level--kids from rich families do better than kids from poor families.

CF: And why is this? Because those rich (relatively speaking) parents got that way by excelling in school, and getting well-paying jobs. They understand the value of education, and raise their kids in such a manner that they too excel in school.

so everyone who is rich started from a level-playing field,and earned their money and deserved it! It's .... Bedime for Bonzo.

Not only do you not know jack about education research (ie,my point) you don't know fuck about American history. Maybe try....EL Doctorow 101

@Pogo:"Yeah, those students can just go 'somewhere else' right? No big deal in the long run, right?Well, not to you, so who cares?People aren't just blocks of wood for you to move around."

Yes, I would imagine they can go somewhere else. It's not as though there's some absolute, perfect fit between student and school. And it may or may not be a big deal to me or my child in the long run; I would be every bit as peeved if my child got bumped in favor of Senator Schmoe's daughter, or some semi-literate football player.

As for the argument that students are admitted at a level above which they can succeed, I think that shows up in graduate/professional programs. But if you have some info about the effect at the undergrad level, I'm interested in seeing it.

In the end, what dismays me about AA is the dishonesty. It's a quota, and both the proponents and opponents know it. If you think it's defensible, then defend it. Don't wrap the argument in crap-words like 'holistic'

I was waiting for Church to explain the doctrine as stated in Grutter, but I don't think I heard it. Did he explain the type of diversity that counts as a compelling interest in strict scrutiny? Did he distinguish it from racial balancing, which is specifically not permitted. I don't think he did. He spoke about the cases but in terms of policy.

What's the intellectual interest of doctrines invented by one Supreme Court, then tweaked and twisted by some later Supreme Court?

As a political reality, you may have to understand them so as to anticipate how they will be wielded—particularly if they are going to be wielded against you.

But the same is true of countless bureaucratic enactments that no one would pretend are based on any worthwhile principle—and that no one thinks were arrived at by a process of reasoning worth the effort needed to retrace it.

If some future Supreme Court were to issue a series of decisions consigning "compelling interest" and "strict scrutiny" and the rest of the New Deal-era apparatus to the historical dustbin, what would be lost?

And how does any of it compare to what is actually in the Constitution, for instance:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Al Gore, and George W. Bush were "legacy admissions" at Yale. Teddy Kennedy was a nincompoop, too. And, was a legacy admission at Harvard. So what?

I take seriously what Clarence Thomas has said! By getting his law credential from Yale, it was thought by all the "elites" ... that he was just an idiot. Who got credentialed on skin color.

When Clarence Thomas spoke to a Law School in Florida, he told those students THEY WERE LUCKY! Because people will know they EARNED their credential!

While over in Madison. Especially among Blacks who were advantaged enough to get into Harvard. And, other top tier schools ... When they're raising their own children ... they are NOT looking for them to fall into the hands of the administrators at U of W. PERIOD!

Plus, all kids usually pick an assortment of college to apply to. And, the best ones can then "negotiate" with the top tier schools ... by flaunting their acceptances ELSEWHERE!

Are people, here, at a loss for this reality?

As to the two white old geezers ... as I've said ... they are way past their prime. They're even too old to be "grandpas" to the crowd of student who had to attend this lecture.

You want to see changes?

BRING ON THE STUDENTS WHO GRADUATED! Show that it's not done by "skin color." That you have to ACHIEVE some sort of academic excellent ... NOT to be tossed out of school.

By the way, Richard Bruce Cheney ... otherwise known as "Dick" Cheney. Or Darth Vader. Got thrown out of Yale TWICE. When he went there, all he did was DRINK.

He doesn't settle down until he got married. And, then he stopped going to bars.

Maybe? Just maybe. If you're investing in a U of W, at Madison credential ... You Don't Want These White BOZOs defining anything!

2007 The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:"Nationwide, the black student college graduation rate remains at a dismally low 43 percent. ...This figure is 20 percentage points below the 63 percentage rate for white students. On this front, the only positive news is that over the past three years the black student graduation rate has improved by four percentage points."

"The University of Wisconsin-Madison, a school with a relatively small population of minority students, improved its URM graduation rate by 11.5 percentage points to 60.4 percent. At the same time, their gap between non-URM and URM students narrowed by 8.9 points. In 2007, Wisconsin’s minority students graduated at almost 20 percentage points above the national average."

From my own observations, I found that the hardest working students were barely able to maintain their "C" average.

I found lots of "A" students who just breezed through.

But in the long run, someone who struggles, can make the best employee. Because they're used to overcoming their own sense of failure.

As to Asians, from the beginning (at least where I live), all the students take extra courses after school. To prepare them for tests they need to take.

And, I can remember a wonderful high school math teacher who HATED dealing with this "extra curricular calculus education." Because the kids were taught to answer "with work shown" that didn't measure up. In other words? The kids were actually bypassing learning what should be learned ... By the gimmicks you can teach "test takers."

I'd also guess that Madison is predominantly a white city. In ways Manhattan, for instance, is not. And, LA definitely also has a polyglot of different cultures.

As long as we tolerate public education, we will continue to have these civil rights disputes.

Even if Blacks, Hispanics and Women were under-represented for reason of being less qualified for admission to Law School, there would be no excuse for taxing them to support the education of White Boys.

Let the White Boys pay for their own education in their private White Boy schools. That's the way it works in White Boy Chess Clubs, where there are also very few women, Blacks or Hispanics.

Our gummint is far more racist than our churches and other private institutions. Take a look at the National Parks and Forests as well as the Ken Burns documentaries or National Geographic photos of them. You will not see a Black, Hispanic or Chinese face anywhere that is not sweating. We need to privatize our disgraceful national discrimination.

As a result of the findings, Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, issued a statement calling for an oversight hearing to review the “possibly illegal” process. Nass chairs the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities.

“The study raises serious allegations against the UW System that they would use race and ethnicity as a core admissions test,”

I think one thing that will resonate with Wisconsin taxpayers that prop up the funding of the university system - is that AA gives preference to out of state minorities over higher qualified Wisconsin residents of the "wrong races".Nor do these out of staters pay the out of state rate to recoup some gain for Wisconsin schooling some amnestied illegal from Chicago or black Somali from Minnesota enrolling in a _____Studies Program. Not really, as they qualify for financial aid that - once again - comes on the backs of Wisconsin taxpayers.

And the obvious - white parents already know that their decades of paying taxes mean nothing if their daughter who has a 3.4 GPA and a solid 1150 on SATs is up against the son of a black welfare recipient who paid no taxes in her single momma life who has a 3.1 GPA and 950 SATs.

Could just have the cracker students wear an armband or a scarlet letter identifying them as racist slaving imperialist hegemons, but since they're white they're easy to pick out already so that's unnecessary.

J - So ...they went to work to try to bring in more blacks and hispanics,and females (to collegetown)--it wasn't just "getwhitey" but to allow a more accurate representation of the population. Whether one agrees with the motivations, it's fairly understandable.

If the goal is everyone gets proportional representation, then more athletic scholarships for whites, Asians, hispanics. The quality and competitiveness of intercollegiate competition would be the same if all colleges limited blacks to 13% of any sport. (And the wealthy owners of NFL and NBA could have "farm teams" in various prisons instead for overlooked black athletes clipped at the 13% level)

If we want an accurate representation of the population, then we have to go to ethnicities instead of the somewhat artifical races the two Jewish lawyers created for the EEO back in 1968. Ther is no such race as Hispanic or "Pacific Islander". No one now believes in their "touch of the tarbrush" notion that one drop of Negro blood makes someone 100% black. Native Americans, by the two lawyers, stop at the US Border. Those below it are also "hispanics" even 100% native blood Mayans.

You don't have "proportional representation" if you exclude almost all mestizos and blacks to give all the hispanic seats to white hispanics.

And Scots-Irish, German-Americans, Poles, Italians are significantly underepresented at America's Elite schools compared to the disproportionate selection of Jews and WASPS. Half the Asians here, of Filipino, ethnic VIetnamese, Laotian, Indonesian, Malay descent - are dramatically underrepresented in good schools as Japanese, CHinese, and Vietnamese of Chinese descent get most the Asian college seats.

My son is majoring in acting at the University of Illinois and yes, he had to have a 1400 SAT, National Merit, etc. So did all of his fellow acting majors, unless they were persons of the right color (I'm pretty sure the Asian chick had to have an even higher score). So, the major doesn't matter and is a red herring in this discussion.

It is also a red herring to say: Well, they can go someplace else. In-state tuition at the leading in-state institution is meaningful dollar-wise and credential-wise, and letting out-of-staters who are less qualified have these spots does positive harm to the persons bumped in favor of the administration's desire for "diversity".

Prosecutors firmly established Buck's guilt, but to secure a capital punishment conviction in Texas they needed to prove "future dangerousness"—that is, provide compelling evidence that Buck posed a serious threat to society if he were ever to walk free. They did so in part with the testimony of a psychologist, Dr. Walter Quijano, who testified that Buck's race (he's African American) made him more likely to commit crimes in the future (Quijano answered in the affirmative to the question of whether "the race factor, [being] black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons.")

"Now, why did both men choose to discuss the matter at the policy level, each endeavoring to sell his policy?"

Because we already know (a) what Wisonsin (and most selective Universities and Law schools) does violates constitutional law and (b) they're going to keep doing it anyway. In order to change the policy opponents have to muster sufficient political will to sustain not only a lawsuit but the decade or two of follow up suits required to enforce the original ruling.

Academia doesn't care about the law. Sure they believe in race preferences for their own sake, but mostly they care about keeping academia purely leftist. Race preferences are a major weapon in that effort, both because qualified minorities are disproportionately leftist and because an objection to race preferences effectively ends a candidate's career.

If the point of Affirmative Action is to make the university population better reflect the general population, then I assume quota systems to ensure proportional enrollment of convicted felons, high school dropouts, and the mentally challenged will be forthcoming.

DBQ: AA is too late. If you truly want to help minorities succeed we must 'drain the swamp' and make sure that the schools are actually teaching students. Instead we turn out semi literate high school graduates who need remedial help at the college level for the most basic skills that they should have learned by 8th grade.

I have had Black students tell me they didn't need to pass Algebra II in high school because they were going to UW-Whitewater, and they had been promised tutors once they got there.

We have had too many students, of every color imaginable, going to college deficient in Math and English for years and years and years. Our universities are bloated. When the Supreme Court decided employers couldn't give an intelligence or aptitude tests to screen applicants, because minorities weren't hired, employers went to other screening devices.

The best indicator of likely success on the SAT is family income. Poverty is more prevalent in the Black community than the White, that is a huge factor. I once worked with a student who had perfect marks on both the SAT and ACT. He was White, the third child with two older sisters. His still married parents were both working physicians. No surprise at his scores.

We need to drastically reduce the number of students going to college. We can't afford the ones who are marginally qualified. Too many take loans and then drop out.

Students from poorer backgrounds are more likely to not succeed at college than those from wealthier backgrounds. The default rate for poorer students at nonprofit colleges and universities is about the same as the default rate at for-profit institutes. Bottom line: it sucks to be poor, regardless of color.

One day I overheard a man explaining to someone else, that following a brain injury ... he was taught again ... by having him do 2 things at once!

Let me explain. While he was learning "facts" ... he was playing ping-pong.

And, since this is known, now, by neurosurgeons ... how come it is unknown by educators?

Who says the kids couldn't learn things in tandum ... with ... let's say ... shooting hoops? Why do they have to be seated?

Have you noticed how connected Americans are to sounds coming into their ears ... as they walk. Or drive ... Because they've got some sort of electronic device in one of their pockets?

You think kids need to look at blackboards?

Do you know I got nearsighted as a kid. (But both my parents were far sighted.) When they thought I should read a street sign ... and couldn't ... it didn't dawn on them I couldn't SEE the damn thing!

At about 5th grade, eye tests weren't given "in the room." We were lined up, instead, outside the nurse's office. And, when I tried to read the eye chart ... all I saw was the first "E" ... And, my parents got called that I needed glasses.

Well.

My mom called her sister on the phone. And, said to her ... "Can you imagine Carol is nearsighted?" Then her sister told her that she, too, was nearsighted. (To the point where we could share our eyeglasses.)

Before I'd suspect "kids can't learn." I'd check to see if the teachers weren't corrupted by bullshit. And, just using the wrong methodology.

In other words. Take Black kids. How come they can score a basketball game?

I also remember reading about Black kids that were totally incompetent at math at school. Who ran numbers for the mafia. Where they collected the 50-cents from the bettors. And, paid off the bets. All the while failing their math tests ... at school.

"Let the White Boys pay for their own education in their private White Boy schools. That's the way it works in White Boy Chess Clubs, where there are also very few women, Blacks or Hispanics."

Submitting a superior practice: let the faculties, public or private, pay students to study with them and supply all their students' needs for food, clothing and shelter during the years of study.

Reverse the economics of the primary, secondary, post-secondary and graduate school system - pay the students to sit for studies - and everything will brace up smart, tall and straight.

The buyer is always right. When students are paid to study - and provisioned while studying - faculties are the buyers and always right, which is as they should be.

When the student pays tuition, food, shelter and clothing, the student is is the buyer and always right. The teacher, whose position should be superior to that of the student, is the student's underling. Chaos ensues, as seen.

Treat the mother as God, treat the father as God, treat the teacher as God, treat the stranger as God. In that order.

"I also remember reading about Black kids that were totally incompetent at math at school. Who ran numbers for the mafia. Where they collected the 50-cents from the bettors. And, paid off the bets. All the while failing their math tests ... at school."

As I recall, Malcolm Little (X) was naturally gifted and accomplished in this way.

"We need to drastically reduce the number of students going to college. We can't afford the ones who are marginally qualified. Too many take loans and then drop out."

Strong concur, 50% reduction at least, probably better 75% - except for the "we need to" part. The students themselves need to: wise up, quit being taken for a ride, led down the primrose path by so-called parents and teachers. Instead, be strong, make their own way in life, define their own needs and fulfill their own inner necessity.

As Carol points out, learning is best done as multi-tasking, aka in real life situations. Glenn Gould liked to practice with a vacuum machine roaring next to the piano bench, so he would not hear the piano but rather cognize the formal structure of the music in its tactile reality on the keyboard.

That Glenn Gould story is news to me! But then, Glenn Gould was an "outlier." Different rules apply.

School's not a bad thing.

Basically, it shows the American success story. Because you don't have to be born rich and male to attend a college.

Also, you need to be more realistic than thinking students are gonna be "paid" to go to school.

While it's true. Some kids can be bribed.

Offer them car keys. See if this doesn't help their grades? Or gets them into more trouble with dope peddlers.

Stop expecting miracles.

What America also invented was the "teenagers." In all other cultures, up to just recently, kids of six were put to work. Very cruel. Coming to America for a lot of immigrants is great sacrifice, which they do for their children!

Our system is way too expensive.

But the costs went up because it became easy to extract the money.

Same with medicine. If doctors needed paying customers (and not insurance companies) ... prices would not have become this outrageous. Alas, they did.

By the way, yesterday we had the post about a small Black community that wanted to send 60 of their male students into an all-boys school. And, the neighborhood went crazy! (Not us so much. The pressures to open the school to girls came from within that community.)

And, unfortunately, we're stuck with a model of school that still uses "blackboards and chalk." Or white boards and sharpies. It's NOT the best way to teach!

What America has, though, is the IDEA that children should go to school.

What else is there?

By the time summer ends ... every single parent I know ... counted the days for the kids to go back to school!

Even college. I can't think of anything that would have replaced Harvey Mudd for my son. Or Pasadena City College for me. (While Cal State LA was TERRIBLE to the extreme! I think I had two classes there that I actually liked.)

Pasadena City College was a treat! It opened my eyes to how good it was to sit in a classroom.

"significantly underepresented at America's Elite schools compared to the disproportionate selection of Jews"

What is your evidence, Fudd,that the proportion of Jews at "elite schools" is due to anything other than merit, especially after they were discriminated against there for so long? In this case Fudd is *for* affirmative action, not surprising from someone in desperate need of affirmative action for the single-digit IQ'd.